Quotes of the Day

posted at 8:31 pm on March 22, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Same-sex couples rushed to Michigan county clerk’s offices Saturday to get hitched a day after a judge overturned the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage, and several hundred managed to do so before an appeals court reinstituted the ban, at least temporarily.

The order by a federal appeals court in Cincinnati came after Glenna DeJong, 53, and Marsha Caspar, 51, of Lansing, were the first to arrive at the Ingham County Courthouse in the central Michigan city of Mason. DeJong and Caspar, who have been together for 27 years, received their license and were married by Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum.

Similar nuptials followed one after another, at times en masse, in at least four of Michigan’s 83 counties. Those four — Oakland, Muskegon, Ingham and Washtenaw counties — issued more than 300 marriage licenses to same-sex couples Saturday.

***

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an emergency stay request Friday after Friedman’s decision. Earlier Saturday, the court had given the plaintiffs in the case, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, until Tuesday to file a response to Schuette’s request for a stay. That order made no mention of staying Friedman’s order until Wednesday.

A similar situation arose in Utah, where a federal judge ruled in favor of gay marriage in December and denied a stay of his ruling. But the stay was ultimately granted by the U.S. Supreme Court after more than 1,000 couples were married.

A U.S. appeals court on Saturday placed a temporary hold on a federal judge’s ruling that struck down Michigan’s ban on gay marriage that was adopted by voters in 2004.

***

***

The judge said he was relying upon “the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the [constitutional] guarantee of equal protection must prevail.” He found that the ban violated the right to equality of a lesbian couple, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, both nurses in Detroit hospitals. He did not rule on their separate claim that the ban violated their right to “due process.”

Although the outcome in this case followed a string of rulings by other federal trial judges striking down other states’ bans, Judge Friedman’s ruling was the first in that series which followed a full courtroom trial. The other decisions have come on pleas for temporary or preliminary rulings, based primarily upon legal arguments.

This was the first full-scale trial since the Supreme Court’s decision last June in United States v. Windsor, finding unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s ban on federal marital benefits for gay and lesbian couples. Although the Windsor decision expressly avoided ruling on the validity of same-sex marriage bans, as such, the reasoning of the majority in that ruling has been cited repeatedly by federal judges since then in dealing with state laws or constitutional provisions against such marriages. Judge Friedman, too, relied upon that reasoning.

But experts testifying for Rowse and DeBoer said there were no differences between the kids of same-sex couples and the children raised by a man and woman. And the University of Texas took the extraordinary step of disavowing the testimony of sociology professor Mark Regnerus, who was a witness for Michigan.

After the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in Utah, Gov. Gary Herbert ordered state agencies to hold off on moving forward with any new benefits for the hundreds of same-sex couples who married during the three-week window until the courts resolved the issue. Agencies were told not to revoke anything already issued, such as a driver’s license with a new name, but were prohibited from approving any new marriages or benefits.

Utah made clear it was not ordering agencies to void the marriages, but that their validity would be decided by the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

My only point is people above complained about Hollywood having a negative impact on the culture of our country. We all agree they do. The things you list are great objective points to combat them since it certainly is a business. Again though we can’t control who goes to a movie. Culture we all have to deal with is still changed.

If we all agree that Hollywood, we’ll use you figure of 80 percent, as a majority of their industry, is actively trying to use 2 hour objects lessons to change our culture … then we agree they’re doing it. And they’ve done it. Not sure how pointing it out is part of the problem.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2014 at 7:02 PM

I’m sorry, hawkdriver. I didn’t see that “80%” figure mentioned until I mentioned the 20% conservatives in the industry fighting for quality. It’s an important point that is often glossed over or deliberately overlooked.

I’ve seen brilliant colleagues careers ruined. I’ve seen their families do without. I’ve been sued because I shut down a project over content and refused to finish the project. Many of us put our career and our livelihood on the line regularly. I take this issue very seriously, indeed.

I’m sorry, hawkdriver. I didn’t see that “80%” figure mentioned until I mentioned the 20% conservatives in the industry fighting for quality. It’s an important point that is often glossed over or deliberately overlooked.

I don’t know for sure either Jackie. I was just using the inverse of your point and example. I bet it’s close.

I’ve seen brilliant colleagues careers ruined. I’ve seen their families do without. I’ve been sued because I shut down a project over content and refused to finish the project. Many of us put our career and our livelihood on the line regularly. I take this issue very seriously, indeed.

Screenwriter and script consultant. I’ve also taught grad school screenwriting and screenwriting master’s class workshops, and I’m a novelist.

thatsafactjack on March 23, 2014 at 7:48 PM

That’s pretty impressive. I’ve talked about him before. I have a friend from HS who is a pretty famous special effects artist. Oscar winner. He is not as Conservative as he used to be but he isn’t an off the deep end progressive either. He’s remarked he has to keep many opinions to himself when working with the heavy hitters.

We also have a screen writer who just came with the last registration. His nic is failing me for the moment.

You’re friend is like many in the industry and has learned to work without unnecessary headache… he has to keep his head down, at least to a degree.

I’ve been transitioning out of the industry for the last several years. It’s why I left California. I’ve reached a point where I can concentrate on the novels, and it’s because of the problems in the industry that I’ve made that decision. We all grow weary and have had our fill of battle eventually. I still consult occasionally for colleagues, and most pf them are moving into areas like Independent film and web based projects. They, too, are weary of the establishment portion of the industry. Thankfully, the digital age has ushered in new freedom and many are slipping the leash.

I’m aware of the individual you mentioned who came on in the last open registration.

Speaking of digital, I’ve also mentioned this many times also, but the CGI is a major problem for my friend. He’s a old school animatronics expert and make up, well, genius I think. But the CGI effects has taken a lot of his work to a computer station. He still does well.

Nothing wrong with echoing a friends comments. I wouldn’t apologize for going to bat for Ms Jackie.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2014 at 7:09 PM

I would never apologize for going to bat for ms J…
I admire and respect you both.
I was simply stating that maybe you had read her wrong..
and I thought she might have left.
so I was hoping that you might re-read it..
my apology was in case she felt I spoke out of turn..
my fault for sticking my nose in where it might not belong..

To the original point. I don’t think a broad brush is a fair way to paint anyone or any field. But if in addition to the voting with your pocket book at the box office, as you rightly recommend, we are also vocal against the specific things we find contrived in movies specifically for that progressive object lesson, it lets them know what we take umbrage with. Personally, the characterization of Southerners and Christians drives me nuts. We didn’t get more enlightened and tolerant in our comic foils, we replaced the old stereotypes with white people who believe in God and country who speak with Southern accents. We almost outlawed one stereotype in movies and fully sanctioned another. And even some people complain that we “insulate” ourselves from that. Too pious, too stuffy or whatever.

I honestly feel bad for you because you’ve dealt with this personally. Certainly no offense was meant. But Hollywood is hard to combat. I’ll just give this last example. We don’t always know the point is coming. I thought Avatar was good. Kind of groaned at the new age BS but liked the movie right up to the point where it was clear Cameron was using ex-military as the protagonists and killing them in every horrible imaginable way possible. He treated them like the monsters in a horror movie and killed them accordingly. In my opinion, he hates the military and hated the war we were involved in but knew that every anti-military flick to date in this era failed. He dressed it up as a Sci-Fi movie and had people cheering the killing of the ex-military “mercenary” characters at the end. It ruined it for me and I kick myself for paying him to make that trash.

You don’t need to feel bad for me, hawk. I scored well, overall, in those battles in terms of content and quality.

You’re right about Cameron and his pals. They’ve made so much money they feel they can afford to try and shove their preferred message down America’s throat. They believe they ‘inform the culture’, and sadly, to an extent, they are successful. Mostly because people don’t think about what they’ve just witnessed and will pay again to see more of the same.

I’m glad to hear that you’re thinking about what you’re seeing on the screen. It does my heart good. It means the battle isn’t lost. :)